"Somewhat scary one near Winnipeg" - The AC Master Incidents Thread
May 11, 2019, 6:40 pm
#4081
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
Airside vehicle activity is dealt with by the "Airport Traffic Regulations" set out in the Government Property Traffic Act (R.S.C 1985, c. G-6). Of interest is the section that relates to speed;
35 No person shall drive a motor vehicle on an apron or manoeuvring area in a manner that is dangerous to persons, aircraft, vehicles or equipment, having regard to all the circumstances including the amount of traffic thereon or reasonably expected to be thereon.
I have highlighted the word dangerous. Technically, if the driver was charged under this section, then the term dangerous is reasonable.
And while the term Aviation Act is not correct, Transport Canada is the legal owner of Pearson international, so I can see why someone could be confused and mix up the reference.
35 No person shall drive a motor vehicle on an apron or manoeuvring area in a manner that is dangerous to persons, aircraft, vehicles or equipment, having regard to all the circumstances including the amount of traffic thereon or reasonably expected to be thereon.
I have highlighted the word dangerous. Technically, if the driver was charged under this section, then the term dangerous is reasonable.
And while the term Aviation Act is not correct, Transport Canada is the legal owner of Pearson international, so I can see why someone could be confused and mix up the reference.
To maintain a valid AVOP, all airside driving rules must be followed. In addition, as airside aprons and roadways are “private road” “highways,” a number of provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and all provisions relating to motor vehicles in the Criminal Code of Canada apply to the airside operation of motor vehicles.
Note that limited sections of the provincial motor vehicle act would be enforced against industrial users of private road highways.
In reading the enforcement provisions, they are rather toothless, so the accused isn't going to be sweating too much.If convicted there is no provision for demerit points and the only prohibition that can be imposed is a forbidding to drive on government property for up to a year. The penalty also allows for the fines under the applicable Ontario road regulations and at worse, imprisonment of up to 6 months.
Crew and passengers can sit back down and leave the 'private words' to those in authority. Stripes on a polyester shoulder and/or fear for one's personal safety do not allow for vigilantism.
Last edited by CZAMFlyer; May 11, 2019 at 6:46 pm
May 12, 2019, 4:21 pm
#4082
Join Date: May 2012
Location: BKK/SIN/YYZ/YUL
Programs: DL, AC, Bonvoy, Accor, Hilton
Posts: 2,917
Here's an excerpt from the Airside Traffic Directives (at a different airport, but the same or similar wording would apply at Pearson): Motor Vehicle Act and Criminal Code of Canada
To maintain a valid AVOP, all airside driving rules must be followed. In addition, as airside aprons and roadways are “private road” “highways,” a number of provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and all provisions relating to motor vehicles in the Criminal Code of Canada apply to the airside operation of motor vehicles.
Note that limited sections of the provincial motor vehicle act would be enforced against industrial users of private road highways.
To the contrary, if found at fault, this driver will likely lose his or her RAIC (or issued a 'terminal-only' RAIC...unlikely for a Menzies employee), rendering airside employment in any role impossible. The highest category of airside driving violation would result in airside driving privileges being revoked for 12 months. There may be implications for a provincial driver's license, if the OPP or RCMP deems such charges are necessary.
Compelling evidence in the form, say, of major damage to aircraft and truck? The collision would likely have been captured on airport cameras. One of the first things asked when responding to such events is that the security staff find and retain video evidence, and it would be available to investigators within minutes.
Crew and passengers can sit back down and leave the 'private words' to those in authority. Stripes on a polyester shoulder and/or fear for one's personal safety do not allow for vigilantism.
To maintain a valid AVOP, all airside driving rules must be followed. In addition, as airside aprons and roadways are “private road” “highways,” a number of provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and all provisions relating to motor vehicles in the Criminal Code of Canada apply to the airside operation of motor vehicles.
Note that limited sections of the provincial motor vehicle act would be enforced against industrial users of private road highways.
To the contrary, if found at fault, this driver will likely lose his or her RAIC (or issued a 'terminal-only' RAIC...unlikely for a Menzies employee), rendering airside employment in any role impossible. The highest category of airside driving violation would result in airside driving privileges being revoked for 12 months. There may be implications for a provincial driver's license, if the OPP or RCMP deems such charges are necessary.
Compelling evidence in the form, say, of major damage to aircraft and truck? The collision would likely have been captured on airport cameras. One of the first things asked when responding to such events is that the security staff find and retain video evidence, and it would be available to investigators within minutes.
Crew and passengers can sit back down and leave the 'private words' to those in authority. Stripes on a polyester shoulder and/or fear for one's personal safety do not allow for vigilantism.
The balance of your opinion on the applicable law is irrelevant, since the laws you reference are inapplicable.
My use of the term compelling, was self evident. Obviously there must have been a credible eye witness(es) or a recording. My understanding is that the fuel trucks can be equipped with speed monitoring/recording devices.
You appear to be oblivious to the fact that a case must be made before any employee can be terminated or subject to a prejudicial change in employment conditions. If the employee is unionized, there will be a lengthy process. Should the employee successfully offer an explanation of fatigue or an underlying illness, it will be difficult to terminate the employee. There are drivers who have had crashes who are still on the tarmacs of airports in Canada. The fact that this information is not disseminated, does not mean that such employees are not present. That is is the reality.
I do not need a lecture on morality. My comment was that it would not be unexpected if crew and some pax wished to have a "word" in private with the truck driver, meaning that the victims would be annoyed and perhaps angry. There was no claim of vigilantism. It is to be expected and no different than what one sees when a speeding vehicle runs a red light and runs into a bus. People do not get off the bus and rush over to congratulate the driver and commend him/her on the execution of the vehicle impact.
May 12, 2019, 5:42 pm
#4083
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Programs: AC SE100K, F9 100k, NK Gold, UA *S, Hyatt Glob, Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 5,187
Dare I say that the driver should be tested for legal and illegal drugs? Or, if charged already, perhaps he admitted fault or failed some sobriety tests.
I was gonna fuel up the plane, but I was high
I was gonna pull right over and stop but I was high
Now I broke a whole plane - because I got high
Looks like the plane is written off, because I got high
Passengers jumped off the plane, and I know why
- because I got high, because I got high, because I got high....
I was gonna fuel up the plane, but I was high
I was gonna pull right over and stop but I was high
Now I broke a whole plane - because I got high
Looks like the plane is written off, because I got high
Passengers jumped off the plane, and I know why
- because I got high, because I got high, because I got high....
May 28, 2019, 8:00 am
#4084
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
Pearson is federal property and subject to federal law. The Ontario Highway Traffic Act does not apply. The federal regulations set out the penalties. The penalties are relatively toothless because a negligent fuel truck driver on the 401 could lose his license for a year or more. However, while a negligent fuel truck driver at Pearson might not be able to operate on the tarmac for a short period of time, that driver could continue to drive on the 401. Violations on federal property do not necessarily appear on the provincially maintained driving record, particularly if they are not entered as an offense under the Highway Traffic Act.
The balance of your opinion on the applicable law is irrelevant, since the laws you reference are inapplicable.
My use of the term compelling, was self evident. Obviously there must have been a credible eye witness(es) or a recording. My understanding is that the fuel trucks can be equipped with speed monitoring/recording devices.
You appear to be oblivious to the fact that a case must be made before any employee can be terminated or subject to a prejudicial change in employment conditions. If the employee is unionized, there will be a lengthy process. Should the employee successfully offer an explanation of fatigue or an underlying illness, it will be difficult to terminate the employee. There are drivers who have had crashes who are still on the tarmacs of airports in Canada. The fact that this information is not disseminated, does not mean that such employees are not present. That is is the reality.
I do not need a lecture on morality. My comment was that it would not be unexpected if crew and some pax wished to have a "word" in private with the truck driver, meaning that the victims would be annoyed and perhaps angry. There was no claim of vigilantism. It is to be expected and no different than what one sees when a speeding vehicle runs a red light and runs into a bus. People do not get off the bus and rush over to congratulate the driver and commend him/her on the execution of the vehicle impact.
The balance of your opinion on the applicable law is irrelevant, since the laws you reference are inapplicable.
My use of the term compelling, was self evident. Obviously there must have been a credible eye witness(es) or a recording. My understanding is that the fuel trucks can be equipped with speed monitoring/recording devices.
You appear to be oblivious to the fact that a case must be made before any employee can be terminated or subject to a prejudicial change in employment conditions. If the employee is unionized, there will be a lengthy process. Should the employee successfully offer an explanation of fatigue or an underlying illness, it will be difficult to terminate the employee. There are drivers who have had crashes who are still on the tarmacs of airports in Canada. The fact that this information is not disseminated, does not mean that such employees are not present. That is is the reality.
I do not need a lecture on morality. My comment was that it would not be unexpected if crew and some pax wished to have a "word" in private with the truck driver, meaning that the victims would be annoyed and perhaps angry. There was no claim of vigilantism. It is to be expected and no different than what one sees when a speeding vehicle runs a red light and runs into a bus. People do not get off the bus and rush over to congratulate the driver and commend him/her on the execution of the vehicle impact.
Also curious is your comment: "You appear to be oblivious to the fact that a case must be made before any employee can be terminated or subject to a prejudicial change in employment conditions". Well, yes...did I state differently? You might want to go back and parse my comment, which included the phrase "if found at fault". It's fair not to default to an assumption that others are oblivious to the process involved to reach that conclusion.
Jun 4, 2019, 6:53 am
#4085
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,441
https://globalnews.ca/news/5349341/a...ight-diverted/
Medical emergency diverts Los Angeles-bound Air Canada flight to Salt Lake City
Medical emergency diverts Los Angeles-bound Air Canada flight to Salt Lake City
Jun 7, 2019, 8:06 am
#4086
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,441
https://simpleflying.com/air-canada-...lon-collision/
An Air Canada Rouge Airbus A321 was in a scare on Sunday. The aircraft is reported to have hit a weather balloon while flying at FL360.
An Air Canada Rouge Airbus A321 was in a scare on Sunday. The aircraft is reported to have hit a weather balloon while flying at FL360.
Jun 22, 2019, 6:02 am
#4087
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,441
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/passing-duckli...port-1.4477470
Passing ducklings delay Air Canada Dreamliner at YVR airport
Passing ducklings delay Air Canada Dreamliner at YVR airport
Jun 23, 2019, 7:39 pm
#4088
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,441
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/air-canada-fli...-yvr-1.4479220
An Air Canada flight bound for Alaska was forced to make an emergency landing at Vancouver International Airport Sunday afternoon.
An Air Canada flight bound for Alaska was forced to make an emergency landing at Vancouver International Airport Sunday afternoon.
Jun 24, 2019, 2:15 am
#4089
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 5
Jul 7, 2019, 8:16 am
#4090
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
Tweet link:
Jul 7, 2019, 9:02 am
#4091
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: YVR TLS
Programs: Air France Flying Blue, Altitude SE-100k, AAdvantage, United Mileage Plus, WS rewards, BonVoy Titan
Posts: 912
FOR SALE: A slightly damaged Dash-8-300 series!
Looks like they've repaired a lot of the airframe damage already..
Looks like they've repaired a lot of the airframe damage already..
Jul 11, 2019, 11:33 am
#4092
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Houston
Posts: 104
Emergency Landing in Hawaii
Honolulu, HI, USA
01:23pm July 11, 2019 EDT
LOCAL NEWS
Haven't see this posted yet.... #BREAKING: An Air Canada flight that took off from Vancouver to Australia overnight has been forced to make an emergency landing in Hawaii, and multiple passengers are believed to be injured. b
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/air-canada-fli...ries-1.4504107
Jul 11, 2019, 11:45 am
#4093
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ottawa
Programs: Altitude E50K / *G
Posts: 924
If it helps EF shows the following:
Comments:
AC0033/11JUL EQU ACA77WC01
CTY TML ARR DEP GRND AIR CABINS J O Y
YYZ - 2015 - 04.49
YVR 2204 2350 01.46 15.30
SYD 0820*2 TOTAL TIME YYZSYD 22.05
YYZ 2015 YVR 2204 77W
DEP TML T1 GATE --/D41
ARR TML M GATE --/-----
YVR 2350 SYD 0820 77W
DEP TML M GATE --/D51
ARR TML GATE --/-----
RMKS/WAS 77L NOW 77W ACCT FIN 706 DIVERTED TO HNL - UPGAUGE FOR
☨
POSS PRO ACCT DIVERTED AC033/11WAS 77L NOW 77W ACCT FIN 706 DI
VERTED TO HNL - UPGAUGE FOR POSS PRO ACCT DIVERTED AC033/11
AC0033/11JUL EQU ACA77WC01
CTY TML ARR DEP GRND AIR CABINS J O Y
YYZ - 2015 - 04.49
YVR 2204 2350 01.46 15.30
SYD 0820*2 TOTAL TIME YYZSYD 22.05
YYZ 2015 YVR 2204 77W
DEP TML T1 GATE --/D41
ARR TML M GATE --/-----
YVR 2350 SYD 0820 77W
DEP TML M GATE --/D51
ARR TML GATE --/-----
RMKS/WAS 77L NOW 77W ACCT FIN 706 DIVERTED TO HNL - UPGAUGE FOR
☨
POSS PRO ACCT DIVERTED AC033/11WAS 77L NOW 77W ACCT FIN 706 DI
VERTED TO HNL - UPGAUGE FOR POSS PRO ACCT DIVERTED AC033/11
Jul 11, 2019, 12:09 pm
#4095
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 6,213
